plus, if you take the time and listen to this http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html and listen to what the commercial fisherman is saying about when they would want to fish i`d have to say that it would devastate the sport fishery and also notice that nobody ask`s what effect this will have on sportfishing, if we had someone on the commission that understood sportfishing that question would have been asked but it wasnt and we are going to get screwed.

Salmo, can you provide any scientific evidence that shows that switching to a selective harvest method on the CR will result in ESA listed species recovery?
I'm not calling you out, just trying to find any science that says this plan is in fact a recovery effort.
All the information provided thus far seems to indicate that this plan is more faith based, rather than based in science.

Freespool,

Please, I've answered that question for you previously. Why the repetition? The answer is no because it won't and there isn't any. Further, selective harvest isn't about ESA recovery; it's about harvesting more hatchery salmon with the same ESA take. You want ESA recovery via harvest reform? Use the selective harvest model I've discussed here before.

Sg

This is more like it Boater.

I have read both over the past year and they both make reference to conservation of wild fish.

So far I’ve shown that some conservation of some of the wild fish can be achieved with the implementation of selective live capture gear while catching much more hachery fish as intended. That is and was the point. People have been incarcerated with less evidence than I’ve shown in this thread.

Here is the whole document for people to see instead of the snippet you want to show.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00036/wdfw00036.pdf

I thought you said that you weren’t Todd. I want to hear from the top clown not the circus grunt about the unfounded accusations over the last year.

So it's a non scientific faith based plan, with a zero ESA recovery potential?
What's your prediction on how this plan, if implemented, will effect sport anglers success rate?

I’ve heard that coupled with all the other tapes if not at the meetings myself so I can get a feeling of the whole picture. I’m impressed and commend the commission with the questions that they are asking. If reports are submitted with out by catch data by fish managers the commission will ask for it and expect it to be part of the report next time so they can make an informed decision.

On this tape you presented here-- the commission asked if exclusive selective fishing could work and the gill netter reluctantly testified yes.
Also another testified that he wasn’t used to putting the fish back unharmed instead bring the gill nets in as fast as he can while slamming the fish into the boat.

That got a good laugh from the by catch conscience commissioners.

the goal of this whole new commercial fishing method is to catch more harvestable fish before they reach the allowable esa take amount, the net gain to listed fish is zero, why is that so hard to understand ?

What you still don't understand is that the same ESA listed will be cut in half as previously stated through out this thread if selective live capture catch gear is implemented.That is one of the benefits that comes along with much more hatchery fish caught.

Another highly contested issue this year was that commercials were going to get all of the extra fish and not have to split it with sports.

Columbia River Sport and Commercial Spring Chinook Fisheries:
Objectives and Strategies for Near- and Long-Term Management

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

I would consider that another

MYTH BUSTED

Consider it busted all you want...the real myth is how a sportfisherman could actually think that this will happen, in spite of all evidence and fairly simple math to the contrary...

You've been fed a line of bull$hit from a pseudo-conservation organization, and you are eating with two spoons at once.

Fish on...

Todd

can you provide a link to a document that shows the allowable esa take amount will be cut in half after they start using a new method with a lower release mortality rate ?

A pseudo-conservation organization that employs lobbyists who have close ties to dam operators, aluminum producers and grain shippers.

Selective live capture testing is being conducted now and in the future. All I have to do is show probable cause the future will provide the rest. Or you could win this discussion with a slam dunk theory of your own so far you only have provided your Bogeyman theories .

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html



Thanks Boater that was good, it pretty much sums up all the problems and the mortality rate isn't one of them.

You never have anything to say about the CR. OK you did one time and you put your foot into your mouth.

You and Todd always talk in generalizations with no facts which the mountainous pile continues to grow.

Looks like it is a good time to take the grand kids to play in the snow this is getting boring.

maybe you can explain your theory to me, how is it that we will have better sportfishing and catch more fish after they implement new commercial gear that will allow the commercials to take more fish than they do now ?

this is a true story, i fish the duwamish alot in the fall for silvers before the nets go in and catch alot of fish and after the nets go in i quit fishing it, i drove down there the day after the nets went in and a sports fisherman was pulling his boat in and said he couldnt understand it, he said yesterday before the nets went in he caught his limit and today he didnt get a bite, was that you ?

This is not a hard concept...focus.

The commerical guys fish first, and in front of us, and using "live capture methods", harvest far more hatchery fish. Read every single non-CCA press release about it, they mention it every single time.

Fish are reserved for the tribal fishers, as always. No less than now.

We fish in between them, over less fish...yet for some reason there are some who equate that with "better sportfishing"...KK's analogy was apt, it's like having a bow season following a fully automatic machine gun season in the same game unit, and expecting better archery hunting.

Live capture methods will be a boon to non-target species like steelhead and sturgeon, and those who fish for steelhead in the tribs or for sturgeon will be happy with the result...I, for one, am one of those who will benefit from more steelhead being in the tribs.

However, for those who fish for springers in the LCR, or in E.Wa, or God forbid, Idaho...those guys are screwed, and big time. Same with those who fish for springers in the LCR tribs, the Lewis, Kalama, and Willamette...bend over.

Wait until they implement it for coho and fall Chinook, too...we'll go to fully marked selective fishing on those runs, and then, once again, we'll fish behind the user group that has the ability to harvest far, far more of them than we will.

As I've said many times before, "selective fishing" (as this pilot program is incorrectly called) is a tool, not a panacea...in appropriate circumstances, it is appropriate, and can account for longer seasons, more wild fish, and better fishing. When it is used in inappropriate circumstances, it may cause damage to fishing opportunity, and may not provide any benefits whatsoever to wild fish.

In the LCR, this is what will happen.

The good thing about these discussions, at least, is that no one will be able to come back after the commercials load their totes, we go out and have horrible springer fishing, and then say "Wow, didn't see that one coming!"...you have been forewarned, repeatedly.

Fish on...

Todd

LuckyLouie - Nobody who understands the Columbia River fisheries ever said the "commercials would get 100% of any additional mainstem harvest". (I can understand the confusion though, because some on here continually, and wrongly, claimed that was the position of us who are opposed to further entrenching the commercials on the CR).

The push to "outcome based" management, is pushed by ODFW to avoid the "allocation question", and thus all the outcry from sportfisher who have jammed the Olympia and Salem hearings these past eight years.

The "outcome-based strategy" disipates the allocation issue, and allows the agencies to boldly proclaim they're giving sportsfishers a "60 day season". Unfortunately, the springer fishing in February sucks, but hey, it's 30 days of opportunity.

Sadly, with outcome-based strategy, the joke (or the myth) is on us.

And that, in part, is why we fought for a 70/30 impact split -- because that produces the "outcome" anglers deserve and want -- a below-Bonneville Columbia River springer season that would dependably continue through most of April.

But beginning in 2010, with the unhappy Tribal co-managers on the warpath, Catch-Balancing became the 'hard cap' on limiting below Bonneville harvest of upriver bound springers.

When you add "selective commercial methods" without at the same time capping the commercial harvest rate, where this potentially leads to, is the commercials achieving harvest parity on the below-Bonneville mainstem. Something they've long asked for on springers. And successfully got on Summer Chinook

Not ALL the fish, but a larger share of the available harvest. That's what the commercials are lobbying for, and it will be a huge win for them and loss for anglers when and if it happens with springers.

Wishful thinking is subordinate to the simple math governing this three way division of hatchery fish.

Freespool,

It's scientific in that there are data on mortality rates by fishing method. There is ESA recovery potential if managers chose to use the reduced mortality for recovery. However, no mention has been made about allocating the mortality savings to recovery. Every agency statement issued has mentioned increased harvest of hatchery fish.

Angler CPUE will decrease due to reduced average salmon abundance in the pool. By how much, I don't know, and it's variable.

Sg